Doctor loses erasure appeal in Vardhineni v GMC

A doctor erased for allegations of distributing confidential exam PLAB materials has lost their appeal in Vardhineni v GMC.

In Vardhineni v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 3328 (Admin) (20 December 2024), the High Court upheld the decision of the General Medical Council (GMC) to erase a doctor from its register due to misconduct. The doctor was involved with a company called Aspire2Plab, which prepared international medical graduates for the PLAB2 exam.

The GMC alleged that Dr. Vardhineni procured and distributed confidential exam materials, giving students an unfair advantage. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal found him guilty of misconduct and ordered his erasure from the GMC register.

Grounds of Appeal

In summary, the doctor appealed the MPT’s decision on several grounds, including:

1. Procedural Irregularities: He contended that the Tribunal’s proceedings were flawed due to procedural errors, which rendered the decision unjust.

2. Disproportionate Sanction: He argued that the sanction of erasure was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct.

3. Insufficient Consideration of Mitigating Factors: He claimed that the MPT failed to adequately consider mitigating circumstances, such as his previous unblemished record and testimonials regarding his character and competence.

High Court’s Analysis

The High Court, presided over by Fordham J, upheld the MPT’s decision to erase the doctor’s name from the GMC register. 

In summary, the Court’s analysis focused on the following aspects:

• Procedural Fairness: The Court assessed whether the MPT adhered to proper procedures and ensured a fair hearing. It found no substantial procedural irregularities that would have affected the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision.
• Proportionality of Sanction: The Court evaluated whether the sanction of erasure was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct. It concluded that the MPT had acted within its discretion, considering the need to maintain public confidence in the medical profession and uphold professional standards.
• Consideration of Mitigating Factors: The Court determined that the MPT had duly considered the mitigating factors presented by Dr. Vardhineni but found that these did not outweigh the gravity of the misconduct.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.